- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Bit that went out after NY and London
by Seth Johnson July 17, 2009

July 17, 2009

Sent the following comments out shortly after the New York and London sessions: Hi all -- I found odd 1) the Implementation Recommendations Team's presenting of recommendations without taking up the impact they would have on established legal trademark traditions, and 2) that ICANN had chosen to set up a panel constituted of representatives of large trademark interests -- after a more participatory process had already been conducted within ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organizations policymaking process. In the following video you can see the response I got to the above questions: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfQrLVeFwcE Here are Kathy Kleiman's comments for the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC): > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgUC869bTVM You can find more videos here (including Jay Sulzberger and Phil Corwin so far): > http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=769 This page from the NCUC describes quite clearly what's happening in terms of how the decision process has been conducted and constituted: > http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html They are proposing to set up: An IP Clearing House A Globally Protected Marks list A Uniform Rapid Suspension System A Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Mechanism Rebecca MacKinnon and Graham Chenoweth describe the issue of prior restraint on free speech associated with this proposal here: > http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/icann-and-free-speech.… > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_globally_protect… You'll find the slides from the IRT's presentation here: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/presentation-irt-13jul09-en.pdf ISOC's Public Interest Registry had this to say: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/comments_on_icanns_irt_final_report/ "We believe the Final Report puts too much emphasis on obliging registries to enforce trademark rights, in place of requiring ICANN to devote more resources to enforcing its contracts with registrars. We also believe that ICANN already has the legal tools to deal with the admittedly rare instances where a registry is in business to profit from trademark infringement. Adding a new legal process and giving rights to outsiders who are not parties to the ICANN-registry agreements is likely to increase litigation and its expense for all concerned. It is not likely to deal effectively with the real problems of cybersquatting." Two commentaries from Saul Hansell on the New York Times blog: The Best Internet Addresses Will Cost a Cool .Million > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/the-best-internet-addresses-will-c… Brokering Peace Between Brand Owners and Domainers > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/brokering-peace-between-brand-owne… This is the overview/announcement for these meetings: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm There are two more, in Tokyo and Abu Dhabi, in the next couple of weeks. Have only heard dribs from the London meet so far. Seth Johnson David Farber wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson(a)RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > Date: July 9, 2009 6:09:28 PM EDT > To: dave(a)farber.net > Subject: NY-ers Needed to Stop Trademark Abuse at ICANN > Reply-To: seth.johnson(a)RealMeasures.dyndns.org > > Hi Dave -- anybody in New York who wants to call out the ICANN's > "Implementation Recommendation Team" for their attempt provide tools > for abusing trademark while they roll out the new Global Top Level > Domains, needs to REGISTER BY TOMORROW here: > > > http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/ > > And then show up THIS MONDAY (sorry for the shouting, but those are > the key terms in this message) at the Millenium Hotel, 145 West 44th > Street. > > See the blurb below my signature from Kathy Kleiman, among those who > have been there from the inception of ICANN and watching out for all > of us. > > (Others in other cities, check out the schedule of meetings and get > ready -- they are hitting several cities in a rapid fire fashion this > month.) > > The MPAA and International Trademark Association have had a hand in > ICANN from its inception, when they prevailed in establishing the > Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. Now, along with rolling out new > global Top Level Domains, trademark holders are ramming through a new > process that goes well beyond that. They are pulling out the stops to > get ICANN to implement what will in practical terms amount to a huge > revision in the nature of trademark, backed by strong action on the > part of ICANN. Along with a new "Uniform Rapid Suspension System" to > shut down sites quickly, they are establishing ICANN as playing the > role of policing trademarks -- which by law is the trademark holders' > responsibility. > > Domain names don't match up with trademark law -- DNS is about giving > symbols one universal address. Language is not. You don't trademark > "Apple" -- you reserve the use of that trademark to market a > particular kind of goods or service. Thus we have Apple Computers and > The Beatles' Apple music company. Or Sun Oil in Canada, a completely > separate company from Sun Oil in America -- and certainly not the same > as the Sun computing company. And trademark is also subject to fair > use and of course free speech. > > While of course this becomes a tool for draconian action in the area > of domain names, it also sets the stage for a major revision in the > basic conception of trademark policy, allowing this to extend further. > > Seth Johnson > (Random Internet Activist) > > ICANN Public Consultation: Should New Top Level Domains Include Broad > New Trademark Protections? > > On Mon, July 13, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN) will hold a public consultation at the Hudson > Theatre, Millennium Hotel, 145 West 44th Street, to discuss the > "rules of the road" for new generic top level domains (gTLDs), future > competitors to .COM, .ORG and .NET. > > A group of trademark attorneys, representing large brand owners, in > May wrote a report calling on ICANN to create broad new trademark > protections before opening up new gTLDs. > > A. IP Clearinghouse: a massive database of registered and > unregistered trademark rights created by ICANN (IRT > Report, pp. 12-16 > > B. Globally Protected Marks List: a list of global marks > created and maintained by ICANN (IRT Report, pp. 16- > 22) > > C. Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS): A ultra-fast > takedown service with little notice or time to respond > by domain name registrants (IRT, pp. 25-37) > > These proposals have been criticized as outside the mission and scope > of ICANN, a technical body, and outside the protections and limits > of trademark law. ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency writes "We > fear the impact of the IRT Proposals on free speech and fair use > online. Trademark owners don't own strings of letters, they have a > trademark for specific goods and services. Basic words like APPLE, > TIDE, SUN and TIME belong to all of us. Many important domain names > will be lost, or worse, blocked before they can be registered." > > Approval of the IRT Report is being rushed through ICANN with minimal > opportunity to comment. It is vital that ICANN hear comment as soon > as possible, and Monday is an opportunity to speak. > > ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency will be hosting a breakfast > at the Millennium Hotel on Monday morning. Please contact NCUC > Co-Founder Kathy Kleiman, kathy(a)kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>, for more details. > > Registration to speak on 7/13 at this link (deadline 7/10): > http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/ > > IRT Report: > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm > > IP Justice Comments: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00210.html > > EFF Australia Comments: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00179.html > > Noncommercial Users Constituency Website with comments: > http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/

3 4

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 17, 2009

July 17, 2009

Total of 25 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 17 00:53:02 EDT 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 4.00% | 1 | 53.68% | 189967 | vanda at uol.com.br 16.00% | 4 | 6.62% | 23427 | jmamodio at gmail.com 12.00% | 3 | 7.03% | 24875 | ocl at gih.com 8.00% | 2 | 4.67% | 16522 | elisabeth.porteneuve at cetp.ipsl.fr 8.00% | 2 | 3.95% | 13977 | karl at cavebear.com 8.00% | 2 | 3.72% | 13172 | carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm 8.00% | 2 | 3.70% | 13101 | michele at blacknight.ie 4.00% | 1 | 2.35% | 8313 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 4.00% | 1 | 2.15% | 7600 | iza at anr.org 4.00% | 1 | 1.97% | 6961 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 4.00% | 1 | 1.91% | 6777 | joly at punkcast.com 4.00% | 1 | 1.91% | 6777 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 4.00% | 1 | 1.69% | 5995 | ross at tucows.com 4.00% | 1 | 1.69% | 5973 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.00% | 1 | 1.56% | 5529 | johnl at iecc.com 4.00% | 1 | 1.39% | 4927 | derek at aa419.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 25 |100.00% | 353893 | Total

1 0

FW: ALAC Statement on 2nd Interim Report of the Board Review WG
by Vanda Scartezini July 17, 2009

July 17, 2009

Dear all Attached you will find the statement on 2nd interim report of the board review working group. Even the comment period is already closed, we believe it is important to have the comments and suggestion from all members, since there will be always room to add any relevant comment to the board. Thanks for your comments. Sorry not have yet translations. Best to all, Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464

1 0

Unethical domain reseller again
by Derek Smythe July 16, 2009

July 16, 2009

Hi All A domain scam attempt sent to an anti-scam website :) http://www.bobbear.co.uk/worldwide-network.html I thought this nonsense was resolved some time ago, but apparently not. I wonder if Godaddy will tolerate this type of behavior from parties abusing their hosting? I wonder if they actually do sell domains, and if so via which ICANN accredited registrar? Or do they just take your money and run? Other hits on the same scam attempts include: http://blog.commtouch.com/cafe/spam-favorites/is-raymond-marcus-buying-your… http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=648 http://www.norman.com/security_center/blog/righard_zwienenberg/67146/es http://www.norman.com/security_center/blog/righard_zwienenberg/67154/en However digging deeper shows a name change and even more history of this type of abuse. Take a guess what will happen with all the new gTLD's coming along? How long before ICANN will receive a spam scam regarding some fictitious character trying to register icann.whatever? Operators with these unscrupulous ethics do not belong anywhere near a domain reseller account. Regards Derek

2 2

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] IRT working group report
by Elisabeth Porteneuve July 15, 2009

July 15, 2009

Hello, Re: NYTimes Saul Hansell articlle, and its reference to the Treaty of Versailles. Why IPR regarding domain names should be *forever*, unlimited? The situation at pharmaceutical industry is much more sane, when patents expire after 20 years or so. The Treaty of Versailles rule regarding aspirin and other medecine trade mark should apply today to absolutely every other mark - after 20 years or so, in line with patent protection, the trademark word shall became for everyone usage. I may understand that company name shall be protected as long as company is running, but not products, not words we use everyday. I think also that all IPR system related to films or music must be revisited - today the rights are practically unlimited in time, nobody ever seen anything going back to public commons after 70 or 95 years. The Internet is being used by labels to reinforce their positions. The label revenues are revenues of IP lawyers. "The Internet is for everyone", remember? "Don't screw up our Internet" (the message from children to Vint Cerf), remember? Elisabeth Porteneuve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] IRT working group report > Thank you, Joly! > > Hello from the floor here at RIBA. They've implemented a WIFI network, and > I can receive questions/comments (if you have any) and relay them to the > panel. > > I'm sitting by John Levine (writer of "Internet for Dummies") & behind > Konstantinos Komaitis (NCUC's representative here). I had breakfast with > Dr. Komaitis & Richard Tindall (DemandMedia) earlier on, to look for > satisfying solutions for everyone. > > Kind regards, > > O. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WWWhatsup" <joly(a)punkcast.com> > To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:02 AM > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] IRT working group report > > >> At 05:06 AM 7/3/2009, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >>>I've registered for the London event to take place on 15th July ( >>>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12jun09-en.htm ) >>>and will essentially be defending this line: it is outside ICANN's >>>mandate. >>>Anyone else planning to be in London? >>> >>>Olivier >> >> >> Good luck Olivier! >> >> >> I note that remote participation is available via >> https://admin.na3.acrobat.com/_a819976787/outreach >> >> >> Agenda: >> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/london-agenda-speakers-15jul09-en.… >> >> >> >> >> === >> >> The ALAC / NCUC >> >> Joint Statement on the IRT Report >> >> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?joint_statement_on_the_irt_repo… >> >> >> A bit of reaction from the NYC session: >> >> NY Times articles: >> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/the-best-internet-addresses-will-c… >> >> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/brokering-peace-between-brand-owne… >> >> A long think piece from Rebecca Mckinnon supporting NCUC positions >> http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/icann-and-free-speech.… >> >> An essay, quoted in the above, that suggests the Global Protected Marks >> List involves prior restraint of free speech >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_globally_protect… >> >> and finally, ISOC's own Public Interest Registry's comments >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/comments_on_icanns_irt_final_report/ >> >> I quote from the latter: >> >> >>>We believe the Final Report puts too much emphasis on obliging >>>registries to enforce trademark rights, in place of requiring ICANN >>>to devote more resources to enforcing its contracts with registrars. >>>We also believe that ICANN already has the legal tools to deal with >>>the admittedly rare instances where a registry is in business to >>>profit from trademark infringement. Adding a new legal process and >>>giving rights to outsiders who are not parties to the ICANN-registry >>>agreements is likely to increase litigation and its expense for all >>>concerned. It is not likely to deal effectively with the real >>>problems of cybersquatting. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Joly MacFie >> 212 608 1334 >> http://wwwhatsup.com >> http://punkcast.com >> http://pinstand.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

IRT working group report
by Patrick Vande Walle July 15, 2009

July 15, 2009

FYI. The IRT working group has published its final report, basically ignoring all the concerns expressed by the At-Large community: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm Patrick

15 20

Beckstrom on ICANN's location
by Carlton Samuels July 12, 2009

July 12, 2009

It appears he's coming out swinging...as carried by the self-described newspaper of record, the NYT..... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/technology/internet/13iht-icann13.html?hpw Carlton Samuels

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 10, 2009

July 10, 2009

Total of 21 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 10 00:53:02 EDT 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 28.57% | 6 | 27.24% | 52388 | isolatedn at gmail.com 14.29% | 3 | 7.88% | 15151 | ala37mx at yahoo.com.mx 9.52% | 2 | 9.78% | 18810 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 9.52% | 2 | 8.26% | 15875 | sylvia at prontocl.com.br 4.76% | 1 | 10.16% | 19531 | vanda at uol.com.br 4.76% | 1 | 9.18% | 17647 | beaubrendler at earthlink.net 4.76% | 1 | 6.13% | 11790 | ocl at gih.com 4.76% | 1 | 5.52% | 10620 | iza at anr.org 4.76% | 1 | 4.84% | 9302 | langdonorr at gmail.com 4.76% | 1 | 4.13% | 7933 | wendy at seltzer.com 4.76% | 1 | 4.04% | 7759 | danielmonastersky at gmail.com 4.76% | 1 | 2.85% | 5479 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 21 |100.00% | 192285 | Total

1 0

Board Liaison Report from Sydney
by Wendy Seltzer July 9, 2009

July 9, 2009

Hi At-Large, I hope you've all recovered well, whether from travelling to and from the Sydney meeting or from trying to follow its action remotely. I can confirm that there's little public Internet access on the Daintree Coast. I'd like to share notes on a few of the subjects I saw discussed in Sydney: * Welcome to Rod Beckstrom, Thanks to Paul Twomey. ICANN's new President and CEO was welcomed on Friday, and officially began the job July 1. <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26jun09-en.htm> Paul Twomey was recognized with a gala and a place on the Special People Numbers Registry. * IRT Report. The Trademark Implementation Recommendations Team (IRT), was given a huge amount of time to discuss their final report on proposed trademark protections for new gTLDs. The Board asked them to produce this report in Mexico City, and thanked the team for its work -- but has not made any decisions about responses. ALAC and NCUC's joint statement at the Public Forum was among many strong expressions of opposition to elements of the IRT report. At this point, the IRT is conducting a "road-show" in New York, July 12, and London, July 15. <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm> If you are able to participate, pre-register by July 10. Please continue to help the Board hear that the IRT report is not acceptable to the entire ICANN community. * Board Meeting: Adopted resolutions, <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm> Transcript, <http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/transcript-board-meeting-26j…> * ALAC Review. The Board accepted the report of the ALAC Review Working Group and requested that the At-Large community begin planning implementation of its recommendations -- "the Board directs ICANN Staff to assist the At-Large community in developing a proposed implementation plan and timeline for the recommendations in the report (except for the recommendation to provide At-Large with voting seats, which will be discussed by the Board at its next meeting)." Regarding Board seats, the initially proposed resolution contained further reference to Board seats, but the Board struck this during discussion, saying that the question was too deeply intertwined with those of other reviews (particularly the BCG Board Review's recommendation that the Board be reduced in size). This deferral is not necessarily a negative, it simply reflects great uncertainty. The Board is far from uniform in its thinking on this subject -- members differ on whether ALAC should have any seats, whether ALAC or the At-Large Community should be responsible for the selection if there is one, and how ALAC seats would be met by other ACs. The resolution specifically sets the matter for the next Board meeting, which will be July 30. I understand that the ALAC strongly supports voting board seats, and have made that point in these and prior discussions. For the July meeting, I will gather the prior ALAC comments on Board seats, and will gladly include any further points you'd like to add, having heard or read the current state of discussion. * Synthesized DNS responses. The Board accepted a SSAC report and resolved that new gTLDs should not adopt Sitefinder-like wildcard services. "New TLDs, including ASCII and IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs, should not use DNS redirection and synthesized DNS responses." It found this practice harms Internet security and stability and recommended against its use in existing TLDs as well. * GNSO Improvements. Revised draft charters for stakeholder groups are now public. Applications for recognition of new constituencies are under consideration at the conclusion of public comment. As always, please let me know if you have questions. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

North Korean cyberwarfare?
by Beau Brendler July 8, 2009

July 8, 2009

Interesting subject given the venue for our next meeting BB Official: N. Korea believed behind cyber attacks By HYUNG-JIN KIM (Associated Press Writer) >From Associated Press July 08, 2009 7:36 AM EDT SEOUL, South Korea - South Korean intelligence officials believe North Korea or pro-Pyongyang forces in South Korea committed cyber attacks that paralyzed major South Korean and U.S. Web sites, a lawmaker's aide said Wednesday. The sites of 11 South Korean organizations including the presidential Blue House and the Defense Ministry went down or had access problems since late Tuesday, according to the state-run Korea Information Security Agency. Agency spokeswoman Ahn Jeong-eun said 11 U.S. sites suffered similar problems. On Wednesday, the National Intelligence Service told a group of South Korean lawmakers it believes that North Korea or North Korean sympathizers in the South "were behind" the attacks, according to an aide to one of the lawmakers briefed on the information. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the information. He refused to allow the name of the lawmaker he works for to be published. The National Intelligence Service - South Korea's main spy agency - said it couldn't immediately confirm the report. Earlier Wednesday, the agency said in a statement that 12,000 computers in South Korea and 8,000 computers overseas had been infected and used for the cyber attack. The agency said it believed the attack was "thoroughly" prepared and committed by hackers "at the level of a certain organization or state." It said it was cooperating with the American investigative authorities to examine the case. South Korea's Yonhap news agency said military intelligence officers were looking at the possibility that the attack may have been committed by North Korean hackers and pro-North Korea forces in South Korea. South Korea's Defense Ministry said it could not confirm the report. South Korean media reported in May that North Korea was running a cyber warfare unit that tries to hack into U.S. and South Korean military networks to gather confidential information and disrupt service. An initial investigation in South Korea found that many personal computers were infected with a virus program ordering them to visit major official Web sites in South Korea and the U.S. at the same time, Korean information agency official Shin Hwa-su said. There has been no immediate reports of similar cyber attack in other Asian countries. In the U.S., the Treasury Department, Secret Service, Federal Trade Commission and Transportation Department Web sites were all down at varying points over the U.S. Independence Day holiday weekend and into this week, according to American officials inside and outside the government. Others familiar with the U.S. outage, which is called a denial of service attack, said that the fact that the government Web sites were still being affected three days after it began signaled an unusually lengthy and sophisticated attack. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter. Yonhap said that prosecutors have found some of the cyber attacks on the South Korean sites were accessed from overseas. Yonhap, citing an unnamed prosecution official, said the cyber attack used a method common to Chinese hackers. Prosecutors were not immediately available for comment. Shin, the Information Security Agency official, said the initial probe had not yet uncovered evidence about where the cyber outages originated. Police also said they had not discovered where the outages originated. Police officer Jeong Seok-hwa said that could take several days. Some of the South Korean sites remained unstable or inaccessible on Wednesday. The site of the presidential Blue House could be accessed, but those for the Defense Ministry, the ruling Grand National Party and the National Assembly could not. Ahn said there were no immediate reports of financial damage or leaking of confidential national information. The alleged attacks appeared aimed only at paralyzing Web sites, she said. South Korea's Defense Ministry and Blue House said Wednesday that there has been no leak of any documents. The paralysis took place because of denial of service attacks, in which floods of computers all try to connect to a single site at the same time, overwhelming the server that handles the traffic, the South Korean agency said in a statement. The agency is investigating the case with police and prosecutors, said spokeswoman Ahn. -----Original Message----- >From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> >Sent: Jul 7, 2009 4:46 PM >To: LAC DISCUSS <lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Deadline for Public Comment on IRT Report > >It is my plan (which I expect ExCom to endorse at our meeting next week, so >we can start activity to formalize ASAP before the ALAC Meeting at the end >of this month) to take this important (dare I say landmark) Joint Statement >through the same endorsement and Vote process that we did with the various >Summit statements... So that it becomes a piece of formal ALAC Policy >Advice and then send it to the BOARD as advice from the ALAC which we can do >at any point in time but will be useful as they consider the outcomes of the >'roadshow' process re IRT that is about to start... This also means that >whilst not altering the delivered Joint Statement text per se, we can add to >strengthen and make ALAC At-Large specific points (e.g. add the specific >endorsement from ALSes and RALO's etc.,) and any additional comments and >notes as appendixes to the Joint work done Ad-Hoc at ICANN 35... >I also want specific input from the talent pool IRT WG we put together (*so >can STaff ensure this goes out to that list*) as well and will ask that the >'Commons' we set up for these activities, be used for the 'At-Large Comment >period' on it so we can get as much individual input as possible (in any >language) this said it means RALO's and ALSes need to mobilize to get these >additional / supplementary POV's ready to go... I will also write to Robyn/ >NCUC formally to let them know what we are doing how we need to do it and >that ancillary work to the statement may end up being attached to our final >ALAC Advice to the Board... >CLO ( who will be away from office for a couple of days so Vanda acts as >ALAC Chair) > > > >2009/7/8 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm> > >> Dear Colleagues: >> If only because I find it offensive to reason, I have raised before >> now my strong opposition to elements of the IRT Report, especially >> this matter of globally-protected marks. The University of the West >> Indies ALS has also made a public comment to the consultation. >> >> I believe it would be instructive and encourage all LACRALO ALS go to >> the wiki and endorse this joint ALAC-NCUC statement. >> >> Kind regards, >> Carlton Samuels >> The University of the West Indies >> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh >> <admin(a)ttcsweb.org> wrote: >> > >> > The Joint Statement on the IRT Report From ALAC and NCUC : >> > >> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?joint_statement_on_the_irt_repo… >> > >> > Dev T >> > >> > Andres Piazza wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear All, today is the deadline for presenting Public Comments at the >> >> ITR Report. This is the link: >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irt-report >> >> You may remember that ALAC has been very active at Sydney (and before) >> about this, where this document was made: >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_of_the_alac_on_the_irt_s… >> >> >> >> In fact, at the Public Forum, Cheryl (ALAC Chair) and Robin Gross (NCUC >> Chair) provided a statement together. >> >> >> >> I particularly consider interesting the advice provided by Carlos >> Aguirre (he has been insisting in this since Paris Meeting, when New GTLD >> were announced), that you will find at the comments in the link I posted >> above. Personally and algo from a legal perspective, I consider this advice >> as an important alternative in order to avoid legal conflicts. >> >> >> >> During this week we will be providing some feedback from Sydney and >> working with the Agenda. >> >> >> >> Warm Regards, >> >> >> >> Andrés Piazza >> >> LACRALO Chair >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> >> Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows >> Live >> >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> lac-discuss-en mailing list >> >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-list… >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > lac-discuss-en mailing list >> > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-list… >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lac-discuss-en mailing list >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-list… >> > > > >-- >Cheryl Langdon-Orr >(CLO) >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

4 3